Every year or few, there is a push in football to emphasize calling a particularly penalty because of injuries occurring from a particular type of hit or penalty. This year, in college football, it’s “helmet-to-helmet contact,” though I think they’ve renamed the penalty to something else. With the ramifications of concussions becoming more clear, the concern is understandable.

Unfortunately, player behavior often follows the rules and we’re starting to see that later in the season. Ball-carriers seem to be intentionally lowering their head more frequently, making them harder to hit without getting them in the head. So on at least a couple of occasions, the announcers have mentioned what seemed obvious to me: without hitting the head, there’s simply no way to tackle to runner. They’re all but guaranteed a few extra yards or an extra 15 (plus an automatic first down) if they make the hit anyway. This is, perhaps, a small price to pay for player safety. And it seems to be effective. But I wonder if the end-result isn’t going to be runners retrained to get those extra few yards or even better draw a huge penalty. That would be a huge backfire.

A while back, Transplanted Lawyer complained about the NFL stepping up penalty-calling for injury-causing tackles:

Instead, it’s wimping out and threatening to penalize — including fining and suspending — players who hit each other hard and risk injuring their opponent. There is an inherent risk of injury in this sport, and all sports. People agree to do it anyway — they compete and dedicate their entire lives to giving themselves even an opportunity to do it, because there is a tremendous audience for it — and it’s fun. I don’t mean to suggest that the NFL should go back to the days of leather helmets, no pads, and adopt an eye-gouging rule. There should be reasonable ways to protect players from unnecessary and avoidable kinds of harm. I like that the players wear well-designed helmets, armor, and that there are particular kinds of maneuvers and stunts that are not permitted. It’s a fine line to draw as to what kinds of methods of forcing your opponent to the ground should be permitted and what should not be. The guys who run the show need to do what is reasonable and appropriate to prevent injuries — but they also need to bear in mind that we’re talking about tackle football. There are going to be injuries and I thought everyone knew that.

One of the ironies is that football would likely be safer if they did away with the pads and the helmets. The introduction of these safety measures resulted in players changing the way the hits are made. The illusion of invulnerability has caused players to become more and more reckless. Compare football to rugby, that other tackling sport that doesn’t have the pads, and it’s the former where injuries are far more common. Back when I was in junior high, in the offseason we would play a hybrid rugby-football game without pads and injuries never occurred because the hitter had no more protection than the hittee and so the result was that tackles were made with the aim of getting the player down rather than making sure that they don’t get that extra yard or two.

I’ve heard similar things about how seat belt and safer cars make things more dangerous for pedestrians, though I don’t know how true that is. There’s also a pretty strong argument to be made that the illusion of safety that condoms provide created a culture where people were less cautious about their sexual behavior and this is precisely why unwanted pregnancies and illegitimacy rates climbed ferociously as more and more ways to prevent same have become available.

First, a disclaimer. I have no idea if the textual depiction of events is accurate. It could be completely made up to make the TSA look bad. With the current anti-TSA fervor, a lot of people are inclined to believe the worst. Including me, but I freely admit that I could be wrong. With two parallel tracks on my mind, one in which the depiction is accurate and another in which it is not, the first is pretty outraged. The second doesn’t know what to think because it doesn’t know what happened.

What I find baffling, however, is how some people can even grant the events as described (or most of them), and yet still think that we should be more understanding of the TSA officers in question. I’ve heard excuse-making like “why did she insist on not having her breastmilk ex-rayed?” and “By challenging them, she was baiting them.”

The track in my mind that is upset about this isn’t upset that they wouldn’t let her board the plane with breast milk. It’s that there were rules, which the woman was familiar with, which they simply didn’t care about. If the rules stated that all liquids must be x-rayed, then we can debate the virtues of that rule along with the other recent… err… innovations in airport security. But if we have a right to do something, and that right is ignored, then we don’t have the right to do something. It sounds pretty simple in essence. But it gets worse because if the rights we have are ignored, then we essentially have no rights. Because trying to take advantage of rights puts us in an antagonistic place with authority and then we “have it coming” when they respond with hostility. So, in effect, we have to do whatever they tell us to. Full stop.

It’s not unlike something I wrote about a couple years ago:

There is a story in Colosse about a man going around and impersonating a police officer. He hasn’t done anything awful yet, but whatever his motives are they are assumed not to be good. The police are “reminding” everybody that any time you’re pulled over if you have doubts over the authenticity of the officer to find a well-lit and/or well-populated place to pull over. It’s considered a rule that as long as a person doesn’t make an attempt to flee, they should be given latitude as to where or when to pull over.

The problem with this is that when you’re being pulled over, you don’t know if the officer in the car behind you knows and understands this rule. Further, you don’t know that even if the rules should cut in your favor, whether you are doing yourself considerable harm by invoking them. It’s sort of like how you legally can’t be asked various questions on job interviews such as what your wife does but if you ever invoke this it’ll hurt you all the same (I had a post a while back on how my employers keep asking me what my wife does and they’re not supposed to do that, but I can’t find the post).

Chances are, I wouldn’t even like the woman in the video if I knew her. In my experience, the type of women to freak out over stuff like this are the type that believe that formula is child-abuse and vaccinations will give your kid autism. And, generally speaking, I tend to view people that make a fuss over things that I would just sigh and move on about skeptically (because my threshold for “important” is the only one that matters!). But I also find myself deeply resentful of the notion that these people have this sort of arbitrary authority. Since on Track One (where the depiction of events is accurate) we’re talking completely arbitrary because the rules state different, though I would respond the same way if it was written in the book “All rules are subject to TSA Officer discretion” because then I would quite simply have no idea what, if anything, I could bring on the plane, ever.

I had TSA Officers ignore the rules on a couple of occasions. For a while after the Burning Shoe incident, matches and lighters were not allowed on board. Then they changed their mind. At least twice afterward, though, I was told that I had to throw away my lighter. Since I don’t smoke on planes and even in between flights because of Clancy and because a lot of connecting airports will make you walk through security again if you want to go smoke outside, I had no problem throwing out the lighter. I could buy another one for a buck upon arrival. But I was thinking that I had a choice. I could either throw the lighter out or I could make a fuss and make them look up the rules and piss off everyone behind me. It turns out, my choice may have been (on Track One and if the TSA agents were like these) either throw the lighter out or stand like a freak in a clearbox cell while I missed my flight.

I’m hoping on Track Two.

-{Somewhat unusually, this post involves a very hot-button political topic. Please, please be respectful of people of different mindsets in the comment section. References to the other side as baby-murderers or anti-woman fascists or whatnot will not be tolerated.}-

Clancy and I were invited to a dinner for a pregnancy assistance center that a colleague of hers, Dr. Lang, is associated with. Other than free food that wouldn’t be remotely Trumwill-friendly and rounds and rounds of self-congratulations on the part of the organization, I didn’t really know what to expect. If I’d thought about it longer, I might have given more thought to what “pregnancy assistance” likely means in this part of the country. It didn’t take me long before I realized that we were drawn into something we were not expecting. Oh, it’s one of those pregnancy assistance centers!

Arapaho is a relatively conservative state and Dent County is a conservative county within the state (having gone 2-to-1 for McCain), but it’s not remarkably conservative in the real religious sense. At least not compared with the south, which will always be my benchmark. We had a state house candidate that actually had a story to tell about his conversion to Christ and how it took him from being an ex-con to a pillar of the community, but it was actually something that he undersold (it only came up when he had to explain his felony record) in favor of lower taxes and antipathy towards socialism. But it nonetheless is a place of “small-town values” and that is usually going to include a public antipathy towards something like abortion. It’s also a place where abortion is apparently a real problem (if you view it as such) with some of the highest rates in the country*.

So I guess it shouldn’t have come as a complete surprise that this center was one of the ones where helping the mothers-to-be is more a means than an ends and the ends is talking them out of getting an abortion. I figured this out by the second prayer, which included a part about God looking out for the unborn and it seemed pretty apparent that he wasn’t solely talking about miscarriages. My views on the abortion subject shift around with time but are ultimately pretty conflicted, squishy, and middling. I can’t get on board with laws banning the practice and have difficulty mustering up support even in the later-term procedures which I find particularly abhorrent. But I also have pretty significant moral objections to it. While I support the notion of choice legally, I believe that there is a right choice and a wrong choice (the vast majority of the time). So in that sense (as there is nothing this organization can do with respect to the law), I really am on board with what this organization is trying to do.

At the time, though, I felt rather blindsided. This was partly an organization, but also partly a “ministry” (which they referred to themselves as repeatedly). I wasn’t sure to be irritated with the organization or irritated with Dr. Lang for not cluing us into this aspect of it all. But the feeling was all the same. I was also not sure to the same extent that their clients were not as blindsided as we were. Young ladies going in there thinking that they’re going to get help with all of their options only to find themselves pushed really strongly in a particular direction. The place has a pretty innocuous name that only lightly suggests what their aims are. Concealing their motivations, of course, is a strategically wise move. Both when it came to us (once they had us there, it was going to take some courage not to give at least a little bit of money to their cause) and when it came to mothers (you want the ones strongly considering abortion to come in, cause those are some of the ones you most want to reach). In any event, we found ourselves drawn into taking sides of a fierce debate that with forewarning I would have had to think long and hard about getting involved with. I would have felt similarly if I’d found out that this innocuous-sounding organization suggesting more general aims was actually an abortion clinic.

In addition to the religious angle, there were also a couple other points of concern. Their support for abstinence-only education, for example, leaves us somewhat cold. Truthfully, I am coming around to the point of view that the sex-ed debates ultimately don’t actually make all that much difference**, but to the extent that there is a line in the sand I am ultimately on the other side of it. We won’t be sending out kids to the abstinence camp that this organization helps fund.***

More seriously, though, they also made statements that simply aren’t true with regard to viability. So what are they telling the young women that come to them for help? The main thing, I have to assume, is “this is your baby.” The fundraiser was trying to raise money for a live ultrasound machine. They brought one in from Alexandria and gave us a demonstration of an 11-week old fetus that was sucking its thumb. It was the first live ultrasound I’ve ever seen****.

At the point where they were having people dump checks in the offertory buckets, Clancy mouthed the question of whether or not we wanted to donate. I subtly shook my head. At the time I was rather agitated with the blindside and wanted more time to unpack the very unexpected evening. She took the slip, folded it up, and put it in her pocket. She is a stickler for the facts (particularly as they pertain to medicine, and so the rather major fact they got wrong resonated more with her than with me. And, of course, she is not a fan of organized religion dating back to her unwilling Catholic days, reinforced more recently with her experience working in a Catholic hospital with… optimistic… views of viability leading to complicated issues. I figured if I was being blindsided and was resentful about it, it probably went doubly for her since she is further away from their perspective and she is particularly wary of being sold. We talked about it on our way back to the hospital. She decided that she would need to find out more about what they do and how they do it before she donates.

That night, while I was doing some late-night shopping, I started to unpack the thoughts. Once I cooled down, the main thing I kept coming back to is that whatever my objections to the way the whole evening went, theirs is a group with a mission statement I can mostly support. Theirs is an organization dedicated to doing what I believe ought to be done: encouraging people to choose life. Whatever my disagreements with regard to the nature of God, the legality of abortion, abstinence-only education and the like, their relative extremism on the matter compelled them to do the heavy lifting (and the courts preventing them from supporting legal changes I can’t get on board with. Not just pushing girls and women in the “right” direction, but helping those that make the right choice. Pointing the way to adoption agencies. Helping those that keep their baby with material goods like diapers and the such. Reaching out to women who made mistakes rather than smugly condemning them. I might prefer an organization with ideas I am more in line with doing these things, but this is the organization that Dent County has.

Further, their main goal at this point is an ultrasound machine, which I think is a great idea. Ultrasound images are perhaps the most powerful tool in the anti-abortion arsenal. Also, one of the least objectionable. If seeing what is being aborted changes someone’s mind, I believe that to be a good thing. Having an ultrasound of the baby that is actually in their womb also has the effect of preventing dishonest portrayals with mis-dated ultrasounds or ultrasounds of unusually developed or large fetuses (as was alleged at Southern Tech – see below). What they see is what they have. Honesty in live motion. I know some of you will disagree with me on that as well, but it’s my take on the subject.

They mentioned that to do their work they need a better computer and a laptop. If they’re having computer troubles, that is certainly something I can help with. Depending on what they have, I may be able to just give them one of my computers that’s sitting around doing nothing. Or if their computer is underfunctioning I can bring it up to speed for them. Even on the laptop front, I am a really good go-to person for anyone that needs an expensive laptop that won’t set the world on fire with its speed but that is good enough for day-to-day use (I have a possible business plan involving solid laptops – not netbooks, laptops – for under $300). If nothing else, it’s a good way to introduce myself to people as a guy that can do these things.

I was and am kind of curious if we basically freeloaded ourselves a dinner. I was under the impression that our seats were tickets purchased by Lang. I don’t like to think that we were given free food with the understanding of a lavish check at the end of the evening. I don’t really know how these things work.

*- Among the highest in the state or the country. They made a point of mentioning the high abortion rates repeatedly but couldn’t settle on the parameters, giving the same figure (xth in the y going back and fourth with y being the state or the country (I suspect y=state). They also mentioned what towns the nearby abortion clinics were in. This had the unintended effect of Clancy making mental notes because she is legally obligated to refer care to anyone that wants abortion. She does not and would not perform them herself (except in an emergency situation out of necessity). Beyond our moral/ethical reservations about abortion, the notion that some on the pro-choice side don’t believe it should be her prerogative on whether to perform the procedure herself of not is one of the things that keeps us from being very firmly in the pro-choice camp.

** – Both abstinence-only and safe sex movements severely overestimate the decision-making capacity of the young as well as the influence that educators, spiritual leaders, and ultimately parents have on that decision-making process.

***- The thought also occurred to me that for all of the money they were trying to raise for advertising, one hell of an advertising mechanism would be to give out condoms (which I don’t think I have seen for sale since moving here and the purchase of which in a small town is not likely to go unnoticed). Then, after the user errors that would inevitably result do result, they’ll probably go back to the center where they can then be talked out of having an abortion. Of course, this runs headlong into the religious foundation of (most of) the anti-abortion movement and it’s an awfully big concession to make. Also, given the strong Catholic presence here and the social conservatism of the people most likely to donate money, going this route would probably be inordinately expensive with regard to dried up fundraising. So even if they weren’t true-believers, which they almost assuredly are, from a pragmatic institutional standpoint this idea probably doesn’t make a lot of sense.

****- I think I may have seen a video or something on YouTube, but even if I have I might still be uncertain that the fetus is the age that they say it is. A pro-life group at Southern Tech was notorious in liberalish circles for showing pictures of fetuses with ages that were either incorrect or extremely developed for their age.

A while back on a liberal website, there was a discussion about fracking and how the natural gas reserves in Upstate New York and Pennsylvania could make them the New Texas and revitalize their economies. I thought to myself “Wouldn’t that be interesting!” Of course, This website being what it is, they figured it would be a great comeuppance to those (generally red) states that make a killing off of mineral wealth in their vast expanse and voting in a way that these people would prefer they not vote.

Of course, those states also do something. For instance, they don’t look a gift horse in the mouth. Even in Louisiana, even after the BP spill, Obama’s decision to kill offshore drilling proved to be remarkably unpopular.

Some people, like, you know, need money and jobs.

Reminds me of a conversation I had several years back with my old college roommate and friend Hubert. I was working on a project that involved making equipment for a controversial drilling project, which he was against. Among the other reasons he was against it was “What about the people of {the state involved}? Shouldn’t they have a say?”

“Well yes, they should. They want this to happen. It’s the people on the other side of the country that don’t.”

“Well, they’re kind of biased, don’t you think?”

Anyway, along those lines, I suppose that this is New York’s decision to make. If they’re really that worried about the environmental repercussions, I guess it hurts them a lot more than it hurts the rest of us.

A while back, President Obama signed a law intended, among other things, to limit the ability of banks to collect overdraft fees. It limited the number of fees applied to three per billing cycle and forced opt-in to consumers that wanted overdraft protection. In addition to prohibiting billing practices that can lead to interest even when you make payments on time. But what got most people interested was the strike against overdraft protection. People on both sides of the discussion felt really passionate about this issue. I was on the “pro” side. The “con”argument went as follows:

1. This is yet another example of the government penalizing the responsible for the sake of the irresponsible.
2. People need overdraft protection. They should be allowed to get it.
3. The government should not protect people from themselves. People need to learn personal responsibility.
4. If the banks can’t get their money this way, they’re going to get it another way. No more free checking. You just wait and see.

Point #1 represents a misunderstanding of the current state of affairs prior to passage. This isn’t about the responsible subsidizing the irresponsible. Rather, this is reversing a system in which the irresponsible subsidized the responsible. Because of these fees they were collecting against the irresponsible, the hard-up, and the disorganized, they have been able to offer people like me free checking. It’s a good deal for you and me, but a pretty bad deal for them. We can argue the virtues and failings of taking from the responsible and giving from the irresponsible, but penalizing the irresponsible to subsidize the responsible strikes me as much more problematic. It’s the same reason that I am against state-run lotteries. If you have trouble with overdrafting, you’re either poor or irresponsible or both. Life’s going to be hard on you as it is. We shouldn’t take advantage.

Point #2 represented a misunderstanding of the law. Nobody was taking away the right of people to get overdraft protection. It was merely taking away mandatory or automatic enrollment. In other words, you can’t be signed up without your knowledge. It’s possible that the fee limitations would make fewer banks offer the service, but charging $35 six times because someone made a purchase six times throughout the day is ridiculous. If this law went too far, it’s because the banks were taking advantage.

On Point #3, I agree. Forcing people to consider whether they want overdraft protection (and, in the larger bill, making statements easier to understand) will help them learn personal responsibility. As it stands now, people are enrolled without realizing it until it’s too late. Or they can’t unenroll. Avoiding bad consequences means, among other things, being given the tools to know when you are inviting them. Until this came up, I hadn’t even realized that I had overdraft protection. I simply assumed that if I ever overdrew, payment would be denied.

Point #4 I found particularly agitating. Especially when, after the law was passed and banks announced that they might be doing away with or otherwise limiting free checking, they all got so smug saying “I told you so…”

I find #4 agitating because it is absolutely true. The thing is, at least some of us already knew that. Granted, there are those that think that there is a revenue-reduction fairie that casts a spell over bank managers and other corporations that push them to accept lost profits and net losses gracefully, but I don’t. And neither do a lot of people on my side. As far as I am concerned, if free checking rests on taking advantage of those that have difficulty keeping things straight, it’s not something worth having. I feel the same way about speed traps. Getting rid of them will only result in increased taxes, but so what? That’s far preferable than artificially low speed limits and cops hiding behind rocks.

The whole thing is not about the banks making too much money, nor is it about giving money back to the consumer. It’s about transparency. It’s about getting rid of the illusion of free. Things that people think are free but only because they exist based off fees that the consumer doesn’t think he or she will ever have to pay. Checking accounts and credit cards cost money to maintain. If they want me to pay my share, then I will make a decision based on how much that service is worth to me. However, signing on customers who think they will be paying nothing (or a low amount) and end up paying a large amount, you may not be a liar (that’s what small print is for), but you’re lacking in the good faith department.

You may agree with that perspective or disagree with it, but it’s a matter of values and opinion and not a matter of people like me “not knowing what we do” (they say with a smug sigh). And we’re no more guilty of pie-in-the-sky thinking we could get something for nothing than they are for thinking that “free checking” was ever really free.

Anyhow, a funny thing happened on the way to the conclusions that they lamented and I accepted: it hasn’t happened. Free checking accounts come with more strings attached (no paper billing, no tellers), but they have not gone away. And on the other side, most people with overdraft protection have apparently decided that they want it*.

The “con” side is busy saying “I told you so” except that they didn’t. We were both arguing under the premise that this would make a serious dent. And maybe it will, over time. I suspect (well, hope, really) that as more people get dinged they will realize that it’s better for a payment to be declined than getting stuck with $100 in fees. Or maybe they won’t, because $100 is a lot less than it used to be, and that’s good, too.

But whatever the case, one area where I really did agree with the “con” side is that you can’t make better decisions for poor decision-makers. Well, you can, but it’s difficult and impedes on the rights of those that can make decisions with more sound mind. If they want to dig themselves into a hole, I’m actually cool with that. At least then, when they say “Man, I just got hit with these ridiculous fees” I can say “Well, you shouldn’t have gotten that overdraft protection.”

In some ways, all along this has been about the right wag my finger at the irresponsible. Before, decisions were being made without their input. I could put myself in their shoes because I didn’t realize you could automatically get overdraft protection. I could condemn the banks because they were relying on people to not fully appreciate the consequences of their actions. Now, the banks merely say “Well, they signed up for it” and that’s good enough for me.

And in the meantime, 25% of people are no longer enrolled in overdraft protection they didn’t want. That alone is progress.

* – Apparently the banks pushed the customers on this hard. I guess my bank knew better than to even pitch the idea to me except for a little box on my statement. I guess I don’t really like the high-pressure sale, but once again, there is only so much I want the government to do to protect people from making stupid decisions. The bill meets that threshold, as far as I am concerned.

Farhad Manjoo declares it dead:

On paper, the entry-level $999 Air looks subpar. Its processor isn’t nearly as fast as that of a full-size machine, and its screen is too vertically scrunched. The biggest problem, though, seems to be its limited disk space—there’s only 64GB of room for all your files, less than any other computer Apple offers. (The Air uses solid-state flash storage, which is faster and smaller than a traditional mechanical hard drive. It’s also more expensive—for an obscene $200 more, Apple will give you a 128-gigabyte solid state drive.)

But these limitations don’t bother me very much. I was looking for a laptop as a secondary machine, not for getting a lot of daily work done. The Air’s portability and five-hour battery life were more important to me than its screen and speed (which are quite good for most tasks, I’ve found, and certainly better than most netbooks I’ve used). The fact that I can get that portability in a machine with a full-sized trackpad and keyboard—indeed, this is one of the most comfortable keyboards available on a laptop of any size—was a bonus. Still, there was the issue of disk space. How would I make do with a computer that offered less room than some iPods?

When I read the title, and the first paragraph about how this was about an Apple, I figured “Oh, yes. Another example of how if Apple doesn’t offer it you’re better off without it.” But actually, I agree up to a point. SSDs are not really worth the price for the kinds of computers I buy, but if you have a computer with weaker processing power (which may be necessary for something as thin as a Macbook Air) then maybe it is. The Macbook Air doesn’t appeal to me for the same reason that netbooks don’t, but I recognize that both appeal to people who are not me.

Anyway, what I agree with is that by and large having 64GB isn’t that much of an issue. Manjoo goes on to say that we’re going to transition to external drives and the like. A lot of us will. I already do with my pocket drive that I have for the convenience of switching amongst my laptops whether I am home or away. What Manjoo doesn’t really address, though, is that 64GB is enough for most people even without an external drive. It’s a common fault among tech writers to assume that most users are a lot more like them than they are. Which is what Manjoo does.

You would have to spend in the order of $10,000 in order to fill up one of those hard drives with music. Or illegally download 10,000 tracks. Or buy that many tracks off a cheaper service like eMusic (if they’re still cheaper like they used to be). That is not something that most people do. Nor do most people download videos, which is what really takes up the space. If you’re not a music afficionado, which most people aren’t, a hard-core pirate, which most people aren’t, or downloading videos, which most people don’t, there is no reason that you can’t fit everything on to that drive.

Apple, to its credit, understands this. And this corner that they cut is a good one. With hard drive capacities far outstripping need, sideways upgrades make a great deal of sense. Trading processing power for better drives make sense. Not because everyone is going to go out and get a pocket drive, but because most people will never need to. Particularly if the Macbook Air is not their only computer, which it frequently isn’t going to be. They can easily do what I do (with or without the pocket drive) and keep everything on their desktop and move things to their laptop/netbook as required.

Along these lines, I think that Manjoo is right that we’re going to be moving away from singular laptops into something more specialized. Perhaps I am falling into the same trap (thinking everybody will do/want what I do), but with more specialization than ever in computing, it makes sense to have a netbook for light-but-extremely-mobile usage, a desktop for more serious computing, and maybe a laptop for serious computing on the run. And of course a smartphone for extremely-light-and-ridiculously-mobile-but-hard-to-use usage. And an iPad fitting in there somewhere.

Since I was in college there has always been talk about how computers are going to become dumb terminals. Any day now. It still hasn’t happened, but over ten years later I’m finally starting to see it do so. In a fashion. Due largely to the specialization where you have an iPad for some things, a netbook for others, and so on. From experience, it’s going to get harder and harder to keep everything on each computer and easier and easier to use centralized services like GoogleDocs and the like. Particularly when/if you can count on a constant connection to the Internet. That’s the biggest hold-up for me with regard to GoogleDocs. When I have a constant 3G connection with which I do not have to worry about bite usage, it’s going to become a really attractive option. Or at least a good offline editor with good synchronization. Right now a lot of this is under the assumption that you will always have a connection when you need one, but we’re not there yet.